Introduction:

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to declare voting rights as a part of fundamental rights. Chief Justice of India (CJI) highlighted the importance of a live legal dispute for the court’s jurisdiction under Article 32. Despite the advocate’s concerns about potential threats to voting rights in India, the court found insufficient evidence of a live issue warranting intervention.

Arguments:

The petitioner argued for the declaration of voting rights as fundamental rights, drawing examples from countries like the USA and the UK where threats to democracy have occurred. However, the court, led by the CJI, was unconvinced about the existence of a live issue justifying Article 32 jurisdiction. The bench dismissed the PIL without expressing any opinion on its merits.

Court’s Judgment:

In the case of Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court, with a 4:1 majority, had held that the right to vote is a constitutional right, while Justice Ajay Rastogi dissented, considering it a fundamental right. Despite this precedent, the recent PIL was rejected, underscoring the court’s commitment to addressing only live legal disputes under Article 32.